Wednesday, October 29, 2014

G.R. No. 165907 Case Digest

G.R. No. 165907, July 27, 2009
Spouses Narvaez
vs Spouses Alciso
Ponente: Carpio

Facts:
Larry Ogas owned a parcel of land, and a portion was subject to a 30-year lease agreement with Esso standard eastern, Inc. Ogas sold the property to his daughter Rose Alciso. Rose later sold the property to Jaime Sansano, repurchased the property then sold it again to Celso Bate. I the deed of sale, it stated that it recognizes the lease over the property in favor of ESSO, upon sale, the rights over the land as lessor and seller were likewise transfers in full to Bate. The TCT was then cancelled and new TCT was issued in the name of Bate.

Bate then sold the property to Narvaez. Alciso demanded a stipulation be made in the deed of sale allowing her to repurchase the property from the Narvaez. Upon repurchasing the property, Narvaez and Alciso did not reach an agreement for the price.

Alciso filed a complaint claiming that the intention of the parties was to enter into a contract of real estate mortgage and not a contract of sale with right of repurchase.

RTC held that (1) the 25 August 1979 Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase became functus officio when Alciso repurchased the property; (2) the action to annul the 28 March 1980 Deed of Absolute Sale had prescribed; (3) Alciso had no legal personality to annul the 14 August 1981 Deed of Sale of Realty; (4) the 14 August 1981 Deed of Sale of Realty contained a stipulation pour autrui in favor of Alciso — Alciso could repurchase the property; (5) Alciso communicated to the Spouses Narvaez her acceptance of the favor contained in the stipulation pour autrui; (6) the repurchase price was P80,000; (7) Alciso could either appropriate the commercial building after payment of the indemnity equivalent to one-half of its market value when constructed or sell the land to the Spouses Narvaez; and (8) Alciso was entitled to P100,000 attorney’s fees and P20,000 nominal damages.

Spouses Narvaez appealed to the CA claiming that (1) the 14 August 1981 Deed of Sale of Realty did not contain a stipulation pour autrui — not all requisites were present; (2) the RTC erred in setting the repurchase price at P80,000; (3) they were purchasers for value and in good faith; and (4) they were builders in good faith.

Court of Appeals held that (1) the 14 August 1981 Deed of Sale of Realty contained a stipulation pour autrui; (2) Alciso accepted the favor contained in the stipulation pour autrui; (3) the RTC erred in setting the repurchase price at P80,000; (4) the 14 August 1981 Deed of Sale of Realty involved a contract of sale with right of repurchase and not real estate mortgage; (5) the Spouses Narvaez were builders in good faith; and (6) Alciso could either appropriate the commercial building after payment of the indemnity or oblige the Spouses Narvaez to pay the price of the land, unless the price was considerably more than that of the building.  The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the RTC for determination of the property’s reasonable repurchase price.

Issue:
Narvaez claimed that Alciso did not communicate her acceptance of the favor contained in the stipulation pour autrui; thus, she could not repurchase the property.

Held:
The petition is unmeritorious.
 Article 1311, paragraph 2, of the Civil Code states the rule on stipulations pour autrui:
If a contract should contain some stipulation in favor of a third person, he may demand its fulfillment provided he communicated his acceptance to the obligor before its revocation.  A mere incidental benefit or interest of a person is not sufficient.  The contracting parties must have clearly and deliberately conferred a favor upon a third person.

down the requisites of a stipulation pour autrui: (1) there is a stipulation in favor of a third person; (2) the stipulation is a part, not the whole, of the contract;      (3) the contracting parties clearly and deliberately conferred a favor to the third person — the favor is not an incidental benefit; (4) the favor is unconditional and uncompensated; (5) the third person communicated his or her acceptance of the favor before its revocation; and (6) the contracting parties do not represent, or are not authorized by, the third party.  


All the requisites are present in the instant case: (1) there is a stipulation in favor of Alciso; (2) the stipulation is a part, not the whole, of the contract; (3) Bate and the Spouses Narvaez clearly and deliberately conferred a favor to Alciso; (4) the favor is unconditional and uncompensated; (5) Alciso communicated her acceptance of the favor before its revocation — she demanded that a stipulation be included in the 14 August 1981 Deed of Sale of Realty allowing her to repurchase the property from the Spouses Narvaez, and she informed the Spouses Narvaez that she wanted to repurchase the property; and (6) Bate and the Spouses Narvaez did not represent, and were not authorized by, Alciso.

No comments:

Post a Comment